forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Psionics
Category This is categorized in the "Magic" category, but psionics are completely different. Whereas magic uses the Weave (or the Shadow Weave), psionics are mental powers. We should probably have a Category:Psionics, but I'll just decategorize it for now. Fw190a8 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Too Long I think that this article is a bit too long, and does not need the part about Oblodra. I think we should list the different disciplines, not what psionics can do, like dimensional doors and other stuff. We could have separate articles about each discipline. That would make it more organized. ChaoticNeutral 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) :I agree with that. Johnnyriot999 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Class Chronicles On the Wizards' website there are some articles about psionics in the FR, part of Class Chronicles by Eytan Bernstein. Here they are: *Psionics Across the Land - Cormyr, Evereska, Kaliesh-Erai, Halruaa, Sembia, the Shaar, Thindol *Psionic Classes Ardent, Divine Mind, Psion, Wilder, Erudite, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Lurk *Psionic Races and Classes Blues, Duergar, and Elans *Psionic Races and Classes Ghostwise Halflings, Githyanki, Mind Flayers, Yuan-ti, and Psionic Bestiary The problem is that I don't know if they are canonical and if they can be used as sources. -- 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Okay I added the correct discipline names. (TeliomBrainFreeze (talk) 03:53, May 29, 2014 (UTC)) Ki? Hey, BadCatMan, FYI, articles referring to a monk's ki all link here, yet you removed reference to it from this article. ~ Lhynard (talk) 06:54, July 23, 2016 (UTC) :Ki's been a different thing in different editions; it's only 4th edition that called it psionic. Since the line was unreferenced, I removed it. I didn't know ki redirected to psionics, so I've restored it. — BadCatMan (talk) 07:23, July 23, 2016 (UTC) ::Returning to this, I'd like to develop both ki and psionics for the wiki, but their apparent merger is a bit of a stumbling block. In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition they are distinctly separate and unrelated concepts with different themes and practiced by different classes in different ways. Then, complicating life as it always does, 4th edition seems to merge them. ::But does it? Looking closely at the 4e Player's Handbook 3, the monk class has "Power Source: Psionic" and is the only one that requires a "ki focus" implement. The book talks almost wholly about monks using psionics and ki focuses. It mentions "ki" itself only once, as part of the description of ki focuses, describing it as an "inner magical energy". Meanwhile, psionics is described as a stray magic from the Far Realm (because 4e really can't help itself, and forgets psionics was previously an internal power and it wrecks the monk concept). The Monk playtest in ''Dragon'' #375 discusses how a ki power source was removed in favour of the psionic power source during design, but it doesn't try to equate ki and psionics. So, nowhere does it come out and say "ki = psionics", even though it overlaps the two to the point of being indistinguishable. In the end, 4e Monks use psionics and ki combined (as some 3e prestige classes did). ::On that highly tenuous basis, I'd like to treat them separately. In any case, it would be much easier to write an article focusing on ki, eastern classes, and powers separate from the much greater body of lore on psionics, psionic classes, races, western traditions, Faerunian history, etc., etc., etc., rather than continually switching focuses and topics and going "Meanwhile, over in Kara-Tur..." Does this sound good to everyone? (I tag this as a Split proposal, but the article barely mentions ki yet. ::Finally, does anyone know what 5th edition's perspective on psionics and ki is, if it has one yet? Are they still merged, separated again, or not yet mentioned / completely ignored? Thanks. — BadCatMan (talk) 10:18, September 19, 2017 (UTC) :::Ki is magic in 5th edition. :::"Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse-specifically, the element that flows through living bodies. Monks harness this power within themselves to create magical effects and exceed their bodies' physical capabilities, and some of their special attacks can hinder the flow of ki in their opponents. Using this energy, monks channel uncanny speed and strength into their unarmed strikes. As they gain experience, their martial training and their mastery of ki gives them more power over their bodies and the bodies of their foes." -''Player's Handbook 5th edition, p. 76. :::It's important to note that psionics is not fully developed for 5th edition, with playtest descriptions of the upcoming Mystic class going back and forth on what the exact nature of psionics is (with the latest playtest rules for Mystic referring to psionics as magic). --Ir'revrykal (talk) 17:41, September 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::Thanks! With ki being a separate internal energy in 1e/2e/3e, a (possible) form of psionics in 4e (which was itself changed to a form of magic), and now a form of magic in 5e, I think it would be best to treat it separately and then discuss the variations independently. Fortunately, I'd gotten carried away and already written an article. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 01:49, September 20, 2017 (UTC) Psionic item empowerment Coming back to this, 11 years later, would anyone mind if I merged the ''Psionic items section into Item empowerment to improve article specificity. Also, does anyone think I should rename that one? I was thinking Empowered items, but am definitely open to suggestions. Ruf (talk) 07:02, February 23, 2018 (UTC) :(I made this a separate section since it's a separate topic from that of "Too Long".) When I wrote this last year, I didn't think a separate page for psionic item creation would be necessary, since there was only about three paragraphs' worth of Realmslore for it (once I summarised the essay in Pages from the Mages) and it felt too closely integrated to the broader topic of psionics. Of course, I didn't do include core lore and crunch. I don't feel it's necessary in the current state. But if you know of more lore for it or would like to see it more detailed or structured, then I see no problem with the split & merge. It mirrors your item enchantment article nicely. :I think the name is fine. The topic is the process or action of item empowerment or enchantment, not the finished items, so the noun-ified verb is appropriate. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:57, February 23, 2018 (UTC)